dutch-gov-mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'gets' metadata, implying a read operation, but doesn't cover important aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what 'detailed metadata' includes. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use it effectively.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise—a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and wastes no space on redundant information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given that there's an output schema (which handles return values) and the input schema has 100% coverage, the description provides adequate context for a simple read operation. However, the lack of behavioral details (like authentication or error handling) and usage guidance relative to siblings prevents a perfect score.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'dataset_id' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation without providing extra value.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed metadata for a CBS dataset'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_cbs_dimensions' or 'get_dataset', which might have overlapping functionality.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'get_dataset', 'search_cbs_datasets', and 'query_cbs_data', there's no indication of when this specific CBS dataset metadata tool is preferred or what distinguishes it from similar operations.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.